http://www.ebay.com/itm/1971-Oldsmob...m=162325039115


Hurst prototype w/out a Hurst shifter. It's got a sticker on the dashboard. Looks legit.

 

I have my doubts, 71 442 grill, 72 taillights, too much fluff in the ad.... smells to me.

 

I thought the Hurst/Olds was not built in 1971. It was a dodge challenger that year? Big accident on track at Indy with the challenger pace car and Olds stepped up for 1972 again?
I Remember a photo of the challenger driver losing control on the track.

 

Actually There were no Hurst Olds for 70 or 71. Last made in 69. 70 pace car was sponsored by Olds. 71 was Dodge with the Challenger. Word is after the accident no manufacturer wanted to touch the Pace Car duties so Hurst stepped in with the Hurst Olds.

 

By the way, Hurst NEVER made 25 "prototypes" of anything. This may set new depths of BS.

 

Nice color match from the seats to the side panels, by the way...

 

The Rallye 350 was intended to be the 1970 H/O, but Olds decided to bring it in house. Of course, there's always THIS 1970 H/O:

 

Quote: Rumor has it that this particular 1971 Oldsmobile Cutlass is actually the 3rd of 25 prototypes built for the 1972 Oldsmobile Hurst/Olds Pace Car.

Rumor? Fine way to build mystery for some "roll the dice" buyer.

 

But, but... it says so right on the dash! (Of course, I have one of those label makers also. )

 

Yeah, when was the last time you saw a Hurst Olds that didn't have a Hurst shifter?

 

A co the size of Hurst couldn't afford to do that. It's laughable.
Besides that, why on earth would they need to make 25 prototypes of cars they were only adding accessories to?


& the consignment dealer can disclaim all info if from the owner. Plausible deniability.

 

[QUOTE
Hurst prototype w/out a Hurst shifter. It's got a sticker on the dashboard. Looks legit.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for a good laugh... Carry on

 

Why would Hurst build an H/O without the FE-2 suspension? Why would 1975 type SS-II rims be used? But most of all, it is highly unlikely Hurst would install a pedestal spoiler on this convertible style. The flat trunked '69 convertible, yes, but not the 70-72 convertible body style with it's mini fins. The spoiler disrupts the convertible's beautifully designed lines. If any spoiler was used, it would probably had been a duck tail style, the type supposedly mounted on the trunk of the black '70 H/O "prototype".

 

You mean like this?

 

1974 350-powered H/Os.

I agree that the car in the original post is a really poor clone with a poorer backstory.

Terry

 

Yeah, reminds me of a "GTO Judge" I saw once saw in a parking lot that had a bench seat and column shifter. Somebody had slapped a GTO front clip, including the ram air hood w/integrated tach, onto a LeMans and painted it orange with the (in)appropriate decals.

 

Yeah, I spotted that rig a couple of days ago on ebay. Was to busy laughing and choking to post that contraption.

Pat

 

"This Vehicle is owned by the Company, however, the Company is not making any representations as to the condition, authenticity, mileage or originality of this vehicle. The Company is not issuing any warranties, verbal or written and is not responsible for any omissions or errors in advertising. The Customer is relying solely on his/her own inspection, knowledge and judgment on this vehicle"

Why is this cutting my text above this whole time?

 

Ill try on this message, somehow this twice cutted my text under that quote when i pressed reply.. Weird.

Anyways. That quoted part sounds legit. So, they can build whatever story they want to aid their sales. More rare the car, the easier it is to build a story to support sales. Theres very few guys that would know the real story behind the story. Especially if theyd be clever enough to build the story in way, that you could find few mentions from google search from here and there, but nothing that could verify stories to side or another.

And then when the new guy comes here boasting about his new rare classic, he founds out hes been cheated. The selling Company then just lifts their hands in the air, and tell him that he should have himself verified the story what Company was feeding to him..

Sounds legit. Wouldnt do any commerce with those.

 

We've never seen this happen.

 

What kind of crappy place would put 12 pics all from the same side? No pics from other side or back or interior or under hood etc etc

 

Disregard, the pics are in the item description? Not in the front title page...dumb

 

Might just be me since I'm using a cell phone but there appears to be a poorly fitted ps fender, above the rear bumper seems to be a gap that gets larger as you look from drivers side to passenger side and look at where the front bumper meets the eyebrow trim. Not even. Drivers side has huge gap and passenger side doesn't. Accident car? Twisted frame? Or just me using a small screen?

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...T5G1-0ZilNLpHw

 

I liked this car better when it still had the 1971 tail lights.

See link

 

Do you know for a fact it was a clone? Or are you simply unaware that the configuration you describe was possible?